Re: "External" hosts in EPP

[Klaus Malorny <Klaus.Malorny@knipp.de>]

Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:

>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Brian Park [mailto:brian@new.net]
>>Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 4:44 AM
>>To: Rick H Wesson; asbjorn.rrp@theglobalname.org
>>Cc: ietf-provreg@cafax.se
>>Subject: RE: "External" hosts in EPP
>>
>>
>>Greetings, and thank you all for your work on the EPP protocol.
>>
>>I like Rick's idea very much. So I have a question:
>>
>>Can the <host> object be eliminated completely?
>>
> 
> Brian,
> 
> This is an old discussion topic that was debated heartily several months
> ago.  You can see it all in the mailing list archives, but the short answer
> as to the result is as Asbjorn noted in his response to your note.
> 
> -Scott-
> 


Hi Brian,

I don't want to heat up the discussion again and I would like to refer you to 
ther archives also. Nevertheless, I would like to mention that there are some 
people (evenutally only myself) who think quite oppositional to that:

My opinion is, that

   1. Host objects can be eliminated completely. In fact, the world's
      largest ccTLD .de does it this way and it works fine.

   2. The ownership model (i.e. ownership of hosts tied
      to their domains) and the single instance model (i.e. only a
      single registry object may exist for a certain host) as we have
      in CNO and current EPP implementations is NOT clear and IS harmful
      to the usability.

   3. A different handling of "internal" and "external" hosts complicates
      everything and violates the KISS principle.

   4. Only the minority of hosts used in specialized gTLDs like .info, .biz,
      .name etc. will be "internal" hosts, most will be "external". This
      is a statistical effect due to the increased number of TLDs. Therefore
      the restrictions are obstacles only and their doubteful advantages
      will vanish.


just my two cents

regards,